A Russellville man is at odds with city officials over the planned razing of a house that doesn’t meet city code.

Danny Davis has been working to purchase and renovate a home at 814 S. Erie Ave. The property, however, has been the subject of an attempt by city officials for some time to bring it to a habitable state. Now, the city could tear it down.

Davis said he has been rehabilitating the property, but progress has been slow because he has to work and do renovations in his spare time. In addition, he said he simply does not have the financial means to complete the work more quickly.

“I can’t understand why they want to tear it down,” he said.

Davis estimated he has invested $15,000 in renovations for the home.

Russellville Code Supervisor Bruce Moore said the case file for the South Erie property was opened in June 2012. Moore said some time went by with no work done on the property, which was dilapidated and had trash and junk in the yard. The city council moved to take action on the property and passed a resolution authorizing the city to raze the structure or enter into a rehabilitation agreement with the owner.

On Jan. 31, Davis signed a rehabilitation agreement with the city which outlined a timeline to complete the work on the home and receive a certificate of occupancy. Moore said after failing to meet the first two benchmarks, a decision was made to take action on the home and a stop work order was issued for the building permits.

Davis told The Courier he did not have a choice in signing the agreement; he either had to enter into the agreement or the house would be torn down. He added he simply did not have the funds to complete renovations on the time table set out in the agreement.

In July, the city council convened in a called meeting to discuss the property. Several aldermen seemed inclined to grant Davis more time to complete work and receive a certificate of occupancy. By that time, he had made a number of improvements to the property, including including a new roof, roof decking, windows, doors, some siding, window frames, electrical work and plumbing — though Moore said some of the plumbing and electrical work was not completed to code.

At that meeting, there was some concern by aldermen when it was realized that although Davis had entered into an escrow agreement with the previous owner, he did not have the deed to the property. At that time, they decided not to move forward with granting an extension. Since that time, Davis has obtained the deed to the property.

Moore said when the council declined to intervene, there was a 30-day time frame for the property owners to resolve the issue and take the structure down. That time period ends Thursday, after which the city will move forward with the process of razing the structure.

There is a chance, however, the council may again convene a called meeting to address the matter. A meeting was scheduled for Thursday, but one of the sponsors decided to withdraw support. Three aldermen are required to call a meeting. Sources indicated late Tuesday afternoon, however, a new sponsor could be added, allowing the meeting to take place.

Alderman Martin Irwin, who is the council’s liaison to code enforcement, said he felt the city should grant leniency, though he understood that was a complicated problem.

“The same rules ought to apply to everybody, but they ought to be applied individually,” he said. “I don’t know how we go about providing flexibility, there just has to be.”

Moore said there are provisions to allow for extensions based on extenuating circumstances, such as weather or health problems, but Martin wondered why financial concerns were not considered.

“I find it insulting the notion that financial hardships cannot be a reason why you can’t meet benchmarks,” he said. “I don’t know how to describe it, but it insults me.

“If that’s not a valid reason, I challenge you to find me one that’s more valid.”

Another example of progress foodaddict. You probably want the poor fellows property to be re-zoned commercial . I hope you never find yourself in need of a little bit of time and or resources to comply with a requirement. The City Council should be able to make exceptions. Heck they did with Walmart.

So this guy agrees to the terms of the contract but doesn't follow through and now the City is going to get rid of the eyesore. Why did he sign the contract if he knew he wasn't going to be able to meet the terms?

I am glad the City is finally taking some positive steps to get some of these ugly places removed.